raffael-vogler

His videos are really incredibly intuitive and well-made. He deserves an award for his channel.

> It should always be a person's #1 priority to live as long as possible.

Not for me. Living healthy yes - and then dying quick and painless. I don't care if that happens with 50, 60 or 70. Another 10 years to go would nice, still.

> unless I can devote more time in the gym to bulking.

I have experience with IFing as well as with bulking. And if you ask me - especially with respect to the specific reasons why IF is good for you - bulking is one of the worst and unhealthiest things you can do to your body.

> that there's still no scientific consensus and it still has a fad smell to it.

Do you not feel the difference? When bulking I feel heavy and bloated - it's tiring. Especially when dirty bulking - eating crap just to get those additional calories? Pushing and squeezing more and more food through this delicate and soft tube (your gut) in your stomach. It's more like plumbing than eating.

Having said that - I might do some bulking again at some point - but for aesthetic reasons - not because I believe it's good for me.

So the study measures relative fitness on the treadmill and associates that with cardio respiratory health - but isn't this pretty much just the two sides of the same coin? If you measure 1000 people's performance in some fitness exercise - isn't it obvious that the result will correlate with the observable health?

Freedom requires responsibility. And probably checking the electric facilities and placing some smoke detectors should be considered self-evident. Laws try to make sure everybody acts responsible by placing lots of obstacles to trip over long before anything bad can happen. Now in this case it would have been a good thing - then again though, the laws existed - now the consequence is that dozens of people are still dead just that the guy gets punished harder.

In Hamburg we have really nice planetarium. Recently a guy in a wheelchair wasn't allowed to just attend the show sitting next to a seating row because in case of a fire he might block the corridor and who would be able to quickly evacuate him? Of course the reasoning makes sense but where do we end up when everything needs to be extremely safe or is otherwise forbidden?

This development is a systemic effect which cannot be stopped as far as I can tell. The desire for freedom will be satisfied simply by people refusing to be super strict in practice. Also too many regulations usually will be harder to enforce.

Personal observation - I cannot provide a study for that. As far as I can tell parents (or who ever raises a child most of the time) is the reference point for personal development. That either manifests in emulation or rebellion - depending on the quality of the relationship and the phase a child is going through. But in the long run the similarities outweigh the differences. A bit like a photo and its negative - both convey the same information but look very different.

I would assume that your best bet is to reflect about your own stance on materialism. Usually children develop in the long run towards very similar personalities as those of their parents.

Actually I think the interior looked really awesome. Nonetheless some more thinking should have been put to a scenario in case a fire starts. But still I think the problem is that modern media coverage causes every hazard to be a reason to implement even more rules and regulations for how a building or room has to be designed to be fit for a public event. That's another reason why those non- or semi-professional happenings become rarer - it's just too complex and expensive. Too many laws that you need to keep in mind to do anything nowadays pretty much.

It's the usual question on how to balance the trade off between safety and freedom. I myself am more inclined towards the latter.

> And because you aren’t independently wealthy and/or don’t have a spouse who makes six figures, you’re probably going to be non-profit.

I don't understand the logic behind this. Wouldn't not being independently wealthy rather imply attempting to be for-profit?

I think that what you describe as doing is definitely small talk. It's just not the dumbed-down type expected by many people in the US or some anglo saxon societies. Also the message of the article is actually contradicting your observation b/c it insinuates that Finnish people pretty much don't talk in such situations - which you did. And I hope you can unlearn again b/c as a German I really prefer people with your take on conversing! Those people should rather learn from you.

> “Laura,” she told me matter-of-factly when I asked why we had bonded so quickly, “The Finnish don’t believe in talking bullshit.”

I believe this is characterizing the sentiment of the article much better than what the title conveys. In my experience there are different types of small talk. The infamous kind found in the US is not the only definition of small talk. In many cultures small talk simply means talking without getting too personal - in the US this seems to be accomplished by exchanging what the Finnish girl refers to as "bullshit".

> With two million saunas in the country, which are enjoyed fully nude (generally gender-segregated, although that rule tends to be thrown out in the company of friends), the Finnish seem to have no problem with getting up close and personal. But when clothes are on, the bets are off.

Also an exaggeration in my experience. You can very well talk to strangers in Finland. Just that talking too shallow stuff is maybe not that popular.

> Thanks to television and films (which are mostly broadcast in English) she was already acquainted with non-Finnish communication styles.

That is such a dumb and sad thing to say. I really love the downtoearth friendliness of Finnish people. There is really no need to educate them - and certainly not by means of television.

> When asked for an example of how she wishes Finnish society were more open,

Now we go from talking less to a claim that Finnish society should be more open. It couldn't be further from the truth. If you have been to Helsinki you will have noticed that the society is super open and embracing refugees as well as people with handicaps. Almost everything is accessible to blind people or those using a wheelchair.

> There are more hypotheses than answers for why Finnish culture has a veil of silence permanently stitched in place.

And that is a good thing. Silence and the ability to maintain silence when there is no need for attention seeking behavior is such an important thing. It's awesome.

> “When I was [back] in Finland, I was almost offended when I went to get a cup of coffee from a coffee shop and they didn’t say anything,” he recalled. “It was just ‘what do you want?’. How can you say that? Are you not going to ask anything before that? Oh, yeah. This is my home country. This is just the way things are.

That is just half of the truth. They just won't pretend to be your super-nice new friend like it can be observed in Starbucks for example. But they will be actually very friendly.

In no country I have been treated consistently exceptionally friendly by customer serive in shops or bars than in Finland / Helskinki. It's absolutely stunning how authentically friendly Finnish people are.

---

I would rather tend to label typical Finnish communication as "healthy" - and there is a simple reason for it being like that. Finnish society itself is super healthy - just take a day-trip to Helsinki and you will feel it immediatly that Finland is doing something very right with regards to equality in the society and presence of culture.

Just yesterday evening I had a quick look for old-fashioned chess computers. Who needs a chess computer when you have a real computer or a tablet? The difference is that with a chess computer you are offline.

For me it seems that in times of instant messaging email is the saviour in personal communication - not in professional context though (I still prefer an email over being called many times over). When it comes to private messaging people tend to write mails more with a mindset of writing a letter. Full sentences and the entire communication structure seems to be aimed at being complete and more thoughtful. IMing often feels more like ping pong than actually conversing.